Prosecutors are deeply concerned that permitting Bynum and Davis to employ a duress defense without credible evidence would “create a substantial risk of confusing the jury and inviting jury nullification.”
High Bar for Duress Defense
To substantiate a duress defense, a defendant must demonstrate that they faced a threat of force at the time of the alleged offense, that this threat was sufficient to induce a fear of imminent harm or injury, and that there was no alternative to engaging in criminal conduct. Prosecutors contend that Bynum and Davis cannot present evidence to meet these criteria.
Despite these claims, counsel for Davis asserted that he was pressured to participate in the scheme. However, prosecutors clarified that Williams, currently appealing a 10-year prison sentence, never threatened Bynum or Davis. Furthermore, even if such threats existed, neither defendant resided in Seattle, where Williams lived, providing them with ample opportunity to evade involvement in the fraudulent activities.
Ex-NBA Players Fraud Case : Evidence Showdown
In the same memo, prosecutors requested permission from U.S. District Judge Valerie E. Caproni to introduce certain business records belonging to the defendants as evidence. These records include bank, phone, internet, and email records. While discussions regarding stipulations on these records have taken place, the defense has yet to reach an agreement.
